Town Square

Walnut Creek Chick-Fil-A opens its doors to crowds, protests

Original post made
on Nov 9, 2012

The Bay Area's newest Chick-fil-A restaurant opened its doors in Walnut Creek Thursday morning, ushering in hungry patrons while protesters outside continued to demonstrate against the company's stance on same-sex marriage.

In this economy, someone actually opens a business and hires employees, creates jobs and tax base for government, and yet people want to protest and shut it down?? Very sad how political correctness dominates common sense. Biggest threat to our country is no longer a foreign nation, but rather our own stupidity and failure to see the trees through the forest, and Robin Hood Obama will never fix our economy until he realizes this.

A couple of the predictable right wing rise up to support a right wing sandwich. If you don't like the politics of the boss of this place don't eat there. Their food is full of fat and GMO's anyway. Maybe it's a progressive plot to let the far right eat themselves to death with diabetes promoting foods and additives.

Posted by Peter Drucker's Ghost
a resident of another community
on Nov 9, 2012 at 8:14 am

Let's look at what happened here, shall we?

The guy who runs that company did a very severe market segmentation by alienating a near-majority of CA citizens -- about 48% of Californians in 2008, likely more now. He apparently hoped to provoke demonstrations and profit from the backlash. It worked in the very short-run, but then his Board of Directors came down on him with both feet and told him to knock it off. It's a fair assumption that sales had fallen, since that's what Boards react-to.

It's an interesting, if cynical strategy -- but generally speaking, it's a poor idea to disincline fully half the market against your product, before they even try it.

Hooters tried something similar a few years ago, appealing to their hormonal male demographic by refusing to hire Hooters boys -- and thumbing their nose at the EEOC ("Get a grip" -- further smirk). It probably worked better for them, although it's unclear how much it's cost them.

It's just business -- if you see deeper implications and dark linkages, then you better look behind ... LOOK! THERETHEYARE AGAIN!!!

Can't wait to bring them my business! The protesters obviously do not "embrace" diversity of thought. Libs only allow free speech if it is their agenda. Perhaps more ppl should see the "gay pride" parade to see perversity in public.

Posted by PDsG
a resident of another community
on Nov 9, 2012 at 9:53 am

By all means, Marta, bring them your business. It's a completely freedom-loving American to do so -- and so is peacefully protesting their bigoted business philosophy.

How are these "Libs" not "allowing free speech??" They are exercising it -- as are you! It's fine not to like 'em, if that's your bitter cuppatea -- but you somehow equate the ultimately, uniquely American institution of peaceful protest with censorship. How the very hell did you get There? You have stood the world on its head.

What is it about the fast food dynasty that attracts so many right wingnuts? Three or four pizza chains, Carl's, Wendys, Chick-Fil-Ick, White Castle, and some waffle chain the name of which I've forgotten.
Why not gun store franchise's, or something more apt? Then again, they say that TX and OK are the two fattest states, so it all makes sense I guess.

Is this about Chicken sandwiches, folks, or whether some liberals and gay people got whacked out when a man stated his preference? He prefers traditional marriage. Gays prefer gay marriage. Get over it. I've seen time and time again where liberals have proven this old axiom: "Liberals believe that everyone should have their own opinion, as long as it agrees with theirs." Prove me wrong. I've got tons more examples. It's a true statement.

For me, the gay agenda keeps getting pushed and pushed on society, schools, sports, etc., but not in the way of acceptance for an alternate lifestyle. it is done in a loud, obnoxious, often violent, vitriolic way. "Look at us! Look at us!" Oh brother....If you want to turn away those folks that are fairly tolerant of a particular point of view, that's the way to do it. It worked for me. While I have many gay friends and associates, they don't continually "push" their agenda in my face, so it's OK. But start pushing your agenda in a mean-spirited violent way, and try and tell me that because I believe differently than you so I am wrong, and you're history with me. I say live and let live, but not if you're always in my face with your agenda.

Here's a memo to those who don't want to eat at Chick Fil-A -- don't. Period. There is no gun to your head. Leave me and the rest of us alone if we want to. Sleep with who you want to. But don't dare tell me I'm awful if I disagree with your choice. You're not being liberal, you're being assinine.

Posted by Citizen Paine
a resident of Danville
on Nov 11, 2012 at 4:02 pm

GMan, I'd bet that you consider yourself a good, solid American man, and I'm guessing you may be right about that. As such, I would hope that if somebody in power said that your kids couldn't attend a certain school, or you couldn't go to a particular church  if they got in your face that way  I'd expect you to fight back just about every way you know how. So would I. And so would gay folk, if somebody told them they weren't allowed to marry the person they loved. Like now.

Now, this wasn't "a man stating his preference." He did it in his role as the CEO of his company, AND he backed-it-up by contributing from the company's earnings to groups that want to keep gays from exercising their full freedoms and rights as Americans, including the right to marry and have a family. Did the protesters go to his house? Vandalize it? No, they picketed his business, hoping to inform potential customers about where their money would be going, and maybe convince others not to go there. Did they vandalize? Block traffic? No, they didn't. Peaceful protest is as American as apple pie and chicken sandwiches.

It's how EVERY discriminated-against group  immigrants, religious minorities, blacks, women and others -- has shouldered and demanded their way into fulfilling their destinies as fully functioning citizens. Nobody gave these groups their rights  they had to fight for them, every time. Maybe your ancestors did it  maybe you did in another time or place. That's what gay folks are doing now.

I've never seen this gay agenda about which you complain  do you have a copy? Can you post it? Do you have an agenda? Does it include a demand that other folks keep you comfortable, even at the cost of their own rights? See, I don't think they owe you that, any more than you owe them to be free from having to watch you live your life. Live and let live  that's on my agenda.

Finally, do you really think your sexuality is a "choice?" Can you identify the exact time in your life when you made your choice to become whatever you are? Remember that first stirring? I do. It happened to be for a little blonde girl when we were in second grade together. If it had been a little blonde boy, would I have chosen that? Did you?

OK, Citizen Paine, you're into pissing contests on forums. I can tell. You ask way too many questions that veer off-topic to the points I was making. What did I write that has to do with vandalism, immigrants, sexual "choice", church, school, and little blond girls in 2nd grade, all of which you bring into the fray? You seem to be wanting to get your whole life off your chest. Choose another victim, please.

And, yes, this CEO was "stating his preference", which he is free to do -- even if it rubs you wrong -- because he owns the company. If you ran a restaurant and said you only supported gay marriage, then people would be free to choose whether that statement was part of the math that goes into deciding whether or not they want to eat at your place. In a public eye, you take your lumps. So, why can't he say his peace -- he likely knew it was a calculated business risk of losing business -- but it was HIS risk, not yours. He doesn't owe you an explanation or a policy, any more than any other company does. As a consumer, you have the power of choice to shop/dine or not shop/dine wherever the hell you please.

Don't try to put words in my mouth with your challenging me about the "gay agenda" -- every SIG has an agenda, and they have theirs. Dog owners have an agenda. Blind persons have an agenda. Union workers have an agenda. Teachers have an agenda. Professional athletes have an agenda. Everybody has an agenda, pal. And guess what -- it's not always a bad agenda either, it's just their "causes" and that can be OK. So don't get your feathers all ruffled.

Like i said, i could be wrong, but your writing tone suggests that you line up with those liberal folks that believe everyone is entitled to an opinion, as long as it agrees with theirs. Re-read what you wrote, it sure sounds like that.

G-Man, the CEO didn't just state his opinion, he used (is using?) the profits of his franchise to support an agenda (yep, he's got one too) to deny the right to marry for people of the same gender. Sadly, he does have that right - people can use their money to do all kinds of rotten things. In turn, I have the right to protest the opening of a Chick-Fil-A (I draw the line at calling it a restaurant) as a way of letting my neighbors know how profits might be used. It's really my only recourse - I don't have the cash to go toe to toe with this guy.

You say in your post that "gays prefer gay marriage." Have you asked your many gay friends and associates if they object to hetero marriage? I'm pretty sure you would find that they wouldn't interfere with your right to marry the woman of your dreams. Wouldn't it be great if we could all agree that what matters in a marriage is commitment rather than the gender of the adults in question? Until that time, I have no problem making some noise in protest of the man who contributes to policies that prohibit same gender couples from marrying. It's really that simple.

4 -- "in your face." Response: they don't owe you the duty to keep you comfortable/stay out of sight, at the sacrifice of their rights. And vice versa. If you really believed in live/let live you'd understand that.

5 -- the gay agenda in your face. Response: Pickets were non-violent and well-targeted; protest is how rights get won/always has been, for many, many groups. Gays just one of the latest. Protest is an All-American institution most of us are grateful for, in case we need it, ourselves, some day.

6 -- "don't tell me I'm awful if I disagree with your choice..." Response: gay is not a choice, any more than hetero is. NObody is trying to interfere with Your choices, esp. about whom to marry. But CEO guy is trying to interfere with gay folks' choices -- can you possibly not see the difference?

As to your response: labeling me as anything is a poor substitute for actual thought. It is a defense mechanism for the insecure.

I completely agree with you, Gman...citizen PAIN is a typical pseudo-intellectual liberal on all these boards. A gay teacher I know pushes her agenda every day on the poor kids. It is way more than just tolerance.

PAINE: I am not insecure by any means, those are your words not mine, pal. I'm very secure saying what i said, and i'm not sure what 'label" you are referring to. But let's strip all this down to the bare nubbins, shall we? You (and some others) don't like a particular public stance that a corporate official made. What a novelty. People do that every day. deal with it. he's entitled to his opinion, and to spend his money backing the causes he wants. So can you. As I've said in my previous posts in as clear English as i can muster -- if you don't want to patronize this restaurant chain due to the CEO's stance, which is your perogative, then don't. Simple as that.Why protest? Just don't spend money on his chicken sandwiches. That's one of the beauties of living in the USA. And yes, there is an agenda in my face, i can feel it, so can others. That's my opinion. You have yours. Don't get your feathers ruffled simply because i don't agree with you. Do i need to repeat the line about liberals and opinions again?

DIANE: You raise some good points. But as i responded to PAINE, this CEO can direct his company the way he and his Board of Directors/shareholders want to -- you don't have to eat their chicken if you don't want. Lots of companies (a few oil companies come to mind) spend their profits in ways that people don't like -- and many ways we don't even know about -- and so the only recourse, as frustrating as it is, is to vote with your wallet, and not give them your biz.

As far as asking my gay friends about hetero marriages, what's that got to do with my points? My comments are not about pro or anti gay marriage, it's about pushing agendas and pple who support a cause lashing out at those who don't agree with their cause. To turn this into an anti-gay marriage thing is incorrect. I don't like anyone's agendas pushed in my face (regardless of PAINE's comments about being feeling "safe/comfortable"). Do your thing. Do it with whom you want. just don't yell at me that i should agree with you or favor your viewpoint. i don't do that to you. Bottom line is, don't eat this guy's chicken if you disagree with him. He took that risk when he made his comments public (and he is entitled to his beliefs, as you are), and apparently he is willing to risk losing your biz over it. Acknowledge, move on.

G-Man, you made a comment above that "gays prefer gay marriage," hence my response that your "many gay friends and associates" would be unlikely to deny you the right to marry a woman. Unlike the CEO of the fast food establishment in question who contributes funds to perpetuate the denial of the right to marry to committed adults simply because they are the same gender. Voting with my wallet is just not enough here (I would never eat there anyway), but bringing attention to where profits are being spent is something I can do.

The CEO can do what he wants with his money, and I can do what I want with my voice and actions. Again, it's a pretty simple concept.

Yes, Diane, by your last sentence I'm pleased that you agree with me, because, after all, that IS what this is all about, as I have been writing all along.

You, as a consumer, may not be effective changing even one person's opinion of this CEO's stance on the topic, and that will be frustrating to you, certainly. You'll likely find that even though you try and "expose where their profits are being spent" (it's their right, remember), if people really like the product they will support it anyway. It is a very popular food chain in many places.

But you can get some measure of satisfaction knowing that when it comes to your own actions, you can control where and with whom you spend your money. That may be all of the solace you get, but it's something.

The issue of gay marriage would not be an issue at all, if the gay community had it's own terminology, and started it's own traditions for gay unions. - The problem in this country is that we have no respect for tradition and history and suddenly everything has fallen under the category of "rights". Gay couples have a "right" to a legal union, and I have the "right" to be married in the traditional, historical and biblical sense. Businesses and groups also have the "right" to function as their owners and members prefer - and others have the choice not to shop/eat/spend there, or not to join/support a group. It's called freedom people... and real freedom is for all - not for one group at the expense/reversal of another. Freedom also does not mean we all agree - just that we respect choices and don't force our choices on others who are of another opinion. Protests are just annoying and so pre-technology 60's...

G-Man: "I've seen time and time again where liberals have proven this old axiom: "Liberals believe that everyone should have their own opinion, as long as it agrees with theirs." Prove me wrong."

Well, G-Man, I suspect you're not a "liberal." Yet you are the one person posting in this thread who epitomizes the statement you made about "liberals."

Now, granted, I doubt you actually know anything at all about what those strange (to you) people you call "liberals" actually believe, but if the characteristic you ascribe to those "others" is actually one expressed by you, either you're a liberal or the statement is untrue if intended to describe a condition unique to "liberals."

What I haven't seen anyone post (though I have no time to read every bit above) is that Chick-Fil-A used to be a big PBS sponsor. Why, how incredibly gay of them! Isn't Mister Fil-A ashamed with Barney, that purple Tele-tubby, and all those other swishy characters running around public television? Gosh, maybe he should just call it a day and find a tall bridge.

Posted by Conservator
a resident of Danville
on Nov 15, 2012 at 3:37 pm

JD,

The reason individuals protest organizations of all types is because IT WORKS. Ever heard of a golf coarse in Augusta, GA that goes by the same name? If so, your likely aware of why they opened up their membership, first in the 90s to those of African-American decent and then, more recently to the female gender. How well did you study Civics back in the day? Do you have a clear recollection of what brought the 19th Amendment (Women's Right to Vote along with Prohibition) to come to ratification? Any guesses on what brought (thankfully) the repeal of Prohibition a decade later? Ever see a child running heavy equipment doing street repair these days? (sadly this took nearly a century of angst to address... Web Link)

You guessed it. Protests. Why? You guessed it again. Because, overtime with sustained influence and pressure, it works.

One last, albeit satiric, comment..."pre-technology 60's"...do you really believe this? Even if you were'nt around, have you ever heard of the Apollo program?

JD - the point you make is one that is frequently brought to the table by those that want to "protect" traditional marriage. It's as though if same gender couples who love each other and want to make a life long commitment are allowed to marry, this somehow sullies the union for us hetero folks.

You go on to make this comment: "real freedom is for all - not for one group at the expense/reversal of another. Freedom also does not mean we all agree - just that we respect choices and don't force our choices on others who are of another opinion."

If one group (say, those who oppose marriage for same gender couples) denies the right to another group (the right to marry for same gender couples) does this not equate to one group reversing the rights of another? Is this not one group forcing their choice onto another? In contrast, how are same gender couples who want to marry forcing their "choice" on you? If they marry, does that somehow downgrade your own sacred union?

My husband and I have been married 30 years. My sister and her (female) partner have been together for over 25 years. I see no difference in the quality of our relationships - and I think they should have the option to marry if they so choose (which they don't - us hetero types have pretty much made a mockery with the divorce rate and they don't find it meaningful).

What are you trying to say? I am not traditionally a "liberal" so let's get that out of the way. Your last sentence needs a re-write, it's all over the place. You say I epitomize the statement I made about liberals? How so? I think everyone is entitled to their opinion, just don't shove it in my face, as I don't with you. I actually enjoy intelligent differences of opinion. If you don't want to eat this guy's chicken, don't. It ain't that hard.

Besides, I didn't invent that saying about liberals and their opinions -- it's been around for quite a while, in fact I heard it on TV a few weeks back by some panelist on a talk show. So don't crucify the messenger.

Get back on topic, which is the original story of this post. Fact -- A corporation representative made a statement of their preference on a topic. Fact: A group of people who he offended are making statements of their preference, as they got their feathers ruffled. Two parties disagree on something -- what a novelty in this country. It's OK, dude. Live and let live. Fact: Neither side is going to change the other's minds. Fact: Everyone is free to eat their chicken from whomever they like, spend their money wherever they like.

If you don't agree with a movie's mesage or its director, don't see it. If you don't like the investments oil companies make in certain industries, don't pump their gas. But do you have to blow bugles about your choices all of the time? Just vote with your wallet like the rest of us, without all the fanfare. It's time to acknowledge, move on.

The ppl who don't approve of this wonderful addition need to go to lunch with kiddies in liberal SF and see the naked people who are only required to put a napkin on the restaurant chair before sitting. The "gay" agenda was always way more than mere tolerance. Good for chick-fil-a's leadership.

Posted by Citizen Paine
a resident of Danville
on Nov 16, 2012 at 10:09 am

Pssst-- Gman, I think that "last sentence" that you were confused about intends to convey that you are guilty of the very thing you accuse "liberals" of being: you can't accept that others should have and exercise the very same rights that you enjoy, if they reflect beliefs you don't agree with. I'm not surprised that it slipped past you.

Huh? might have added that your consistently aggressive tone in trying to tell other people on this board what to do is completely inconsistent with your professed "live and let live" philosophy. You are walking internal contradiction.

G-man, thank you, you have stated how I feel far more eloquently than I ever could. The problem as I see it is that the vocal sector of the Homosexual Community yells so loudly because after all these years the majority of people still hold beliefs that conflict with Homosexuality. Using any and all avenues to derail the majority, the minority ends up looking as if they are grabbing at straws to support their stance. I have no problem with anyone stating their beliefs and allowing me to choose which ideology I will support. I do have a problem when a group argues that unless I agree with their beliefs, I am wrong and need to be shouted down. I have always believed that when you want someone to respect (notice I said respect, not a compulsory "agree")your beliefs, you must also respect theirs; sadly the vocal sectors of many minority causes haven't figured this out yet, and the road for successfully having their causes addressed will continue to be bumpy.

Posted by Why_me?
a resident of Monte Vista High School
on Nov 16, 2012 at 11:20 am

1) it's called "choice". we're fortunate to have it
2) Gays can't be joined in union in a marriage: "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc" - from dictionary.com - primary definition. That's reserved for man and wife. Call it something else, and you'll solve the problem.

Why_me? - your statement that (according to the dictionary of all things!) marriage is reserved for "man and wife" speaks volumes. I doubt you will comprehend why and I don't have the patience to explain.

GG - if someone were to tell me that I couldn't marry my husband because our union wasn't sacred enough because of (fill in the blank - we're of different ethnic groups, etc.) I would certainly be inclined to make some noise about that. Civil disobedience has been the formula for awareness and change when a larger majority removes the rights of a smaller group for thousands of years. If the right to marry the same gender person they love were not being denied, there wouldn't be a need to fight for that right. Next time you decide this is an annoyance to you, imagine how annoyed you would be if you were told your relationship with your significant other (if you have one) was not worthy of marriage.

Posted by Citizen Paine
a resident of Danville
on Nov 17, 2012 at 11:15 am

GG: per your comment "sadly the vocal sectors of many minority causes haven't figured this out yet, and the road for successfully having their causes addressed will continue to be bumpy."

Yup, if only black folks had accepted their second-class citizenship, then their road to full civil rights would've been so much smoother.

You see, gay folks don't so much care what you might 'believe' as they care what that belief, translated into law, denies them their right to 'do.' They are off-put by the fact that you get to vote on whether they get to exercise fundamental rights that you take for granted. And they are working very hard in both legal and political arenas to end that kind of discrimination. FWIW, your beliefs will follow, after it has been demonstrated that the sky didn't fall on heterosexual marriages -- but beliefs just aren't the point.

Do you really believe that if they didn't organize and fight for their rights, that someone would just up and bestow them? Can you name one instance in this country's history where that occurred?

Posted by Why_me
a resident of Monte Vista High School
on Nov 17, 2012 at 7:43 pm

Princess Diane (yes of course I know it's Diana) - you just don't get it, do you? Take off your self-righteous hat, your arrogant shoes, your self-centered jacket, sit down, and think about what I may have meant by what I wrote. Either that or take a Reading Comprehension followed by a Logic class somewhere, you really need it. You're simply not as smart as you think you are. Evidence of that is your statement that your husband and you have been married 30 years, and your lesbian pals have been "together" (your word) 25. So all of a sudden, they will have been "married" 25 years? Really, sit down and think about how nonsensical that is. It would do you some good.

Why_me - thanks for the elevation to the status of princess! I think that is a first for me..and my, aren't you a charmer.

My comment was that my husband and I have been married for 30 years, and that my sister and her partner(not my "pals") have been in a committed relationship for 25 years and that I see no difference in the quality of the two relationships. They are not married, don't consider themselves married - as I said, they have no interest in it, even if they had the opportunity. I still believe couples of the same gender who are in a committed relationship should have the option to marry.

Re: what you meant by "man and wife" - that's pretty obvious ...even those of us with self righteous hats, arrogant shoes and self centered jackets.

GG -- I'm with ya --we seem to be saying the same things. Many pple of this post feel the need to keep "shouting it out."

And PAINE -- How dare you claim "I'm not surprised it slipped by you" when I called into question your last sentence up there. Nothing slipped by, I fully understood what it is you wrote, but it was poorly written and you obviously have tons of chips on your shoulders. How dare you say that I'm trying to tell pple what to do on this board -- c'mon, man! That would be a futile activity, and this isn't the place for bullying, so cut it out and stop putting words in my mouth. You're boring me by sounding like a broken record.

Haven't you read anything I've written, i mean really comprehended it? I am very clearly on record as to what i believe, and in my opinions, and at no time have i tried to bully as you intone. If anything, read your posts again -- you've got anger oozing out of your pores. And it isn't just with me -- anyone who writes counter to your viewpoint gets a diatribe from you that is just plain mean. Now, who's living that old liberal axiom, my man? Any more of your outbursts and i think your handle should be spelled "PAIN" instead of Paine. Acknowledge, move on, and stop jumping on those of us in this discussion who disagree with you. You've gotten so far away from the original Chick FilA story it's silly now.

As far as me finding the gay agenda, pal, I don't need to -- it's out there in the media, the schools (Oh, you better teach homosexuality to 2nd graders so they can make a choice," yada yada yada, etc.) Pay attention and you'll see it. How many sitcoms now feature same-sex couple simply to draw in more viewers. it's a business decision--An entertainment exec told me as much, off the record.

Why,you even teed off on a lady by mentioning black people. What's up with you? You've got lot so many issues going on.

And, you twist what I and others write -- I didn't take away anyone's right to have their cause -- I wrote to ask just please don't blow your bugles about it in my face, as I don't to you. Didn't you read that, or are you so full of hate that you only read certain passages in these things?

I'm with you G-Man, this Paine guy is like a dog that won't let go of the ankle. I read all of the posts, and IMO you aren't trying to push yourself on everybody and tell us what to do -- we're all adults.You state your feelings very clearly and without any tricky wordage.

Shame on Paine for inferring that you are doing that, or that you have a "consistently aggressive tone" -- that's not the case. He writes like a man with a terribly thin skin if he thinks that is aggressive. I say strongly stated points are just that -- you make your points with clarity, and have stated your case several times, including the best one about "if you don't like this guy's chicken, don't eat it." It really is that simple. I also second your motion that everyone should do as they like without blowing bugles in the other side's faces about it if they don't agree with them.It's what makes America great.

I remember a travel agent telling me about a "gay cruise" open only to gay people on one of the major cruise lines each year. I also know that several city-run convention and visitors bureaus have openly declared major funding and marketing toward the LGBT travel business. If they also announced the same funds and efforts ear-marked for straight travelers "only", you would hear the cannons roar on Mt. Ranier. It is NOT equal. That is an agenda to me.

Yes, i believe that if we had a "cruise for straights only", wow, would there be a gay revolt of serious proportions --so, in my mind, that's an agenda, too. Sure, just go on your cruise and have a ball, I'll not bother you or stand at the departure pier and protest that it discriminates against straights. But don't you dare do it to my cruise, either (theoretically only, as no cruise line would ever take the risk these days of calling a cruise exclusively straight-only, like they do for gya cruisers. Isn't that an agenda? Isn't that reverse discrimination, Mr. PAIN? Leave the chicken guy, G-Man, GG, and the others who don't agree with you alone, and I'm sure they will do the same - let's agree to not agree and get on with the more pressing issues like California's tax hikes next month and our dastardly legislature.

Posted by Citizen Paine
a resident of Danville
on Nov 19, 2012 at 2:23 pm

Forget it, GM. I tried to be your "pal" by gently pointing out the contradictions in your stated opinions, but you've not been willing to face or recognize them -- preferring to get ever huffier and directive with each response.

I think you have trouble seeing linkages among concepts, and it's probably beyond my capabilities to fix that. BTW, I don't expect you to accept that proposition, either. So, as above, just forget it.

D-Towner -- thanks for your supportive and well-expressed comments. it does feel like a yapping dog at my ankles, too.

PAINE: You are really full of yourself, you know that? You are not my "pal." And my statements are anything but contradictory. How come you're the only one in this thing that feels that? It's pretty clear which corner I'm in.

Someone earlier in this board called you "a pseudo intellectual liberal", and it wasn't meant as a compliment, and from your posts I concur. You pass along judgments more often than a cobbler mends shoes. For instance, who the hell are you to say to me that I "prefer to get huffier and directive" and that I "have trouble making linkages." What universe are you orbiting in? If you want feedback (of course you don't), I'd say you are not very good at reading direct comments and hearing someone else's counter-view, without reading something else into them. I have repeatedly stated my Chick Fil A/CEO case in a straightforward manner, not mixing psuedo-babble like you, and using easy to comprehend concepts -- they just don't agree with yours. I have re-read all of your posts above, and anyone who has written a post that disagrees with your point of view on gay marriage/gay issues, you have angrily attacked, put down, and commented on their psyche like a dime-store psychologist. Well, good luck on that career, pal, I'm sure it will make you a nice living. I'm bored with it. Like d-towner above, what else is in the news, this thing has been haggled to death, over it.

Posted by Conservator
a resident of Danville
on Nov 19, 2012 at 11:01 pm

Boys (Citizen Paine & G-Man),

Don't stop now - please. Respectfully, you two have completely fascinated and entertained a broad cross-section of the many readers of this blog, silent and vocal alike. Thank-you. Perhaps not all will agree with me but I believe most will. Depending on your relative age this is either better then the 'Thrilla in Manilla' (Ali-Frazer '75) or the Hagler-Leonard in '87 (my personal favorite) match.

Along stereotypically testosterone filled posts and retorts that could only be fueled by some sort of deep-seated, egomaniacal blood-lust to get the last word on each other, you both have just provided eight (8) days of litigated dialogue. Reread your own posts.

What started as tentative jabs has finally offered those of us who have dared stay at ringside that etherial '9th' round where it just gets heinous and nasty between the combatants. In a metaphorical manner, you two finally got down to discussing each other intellect, psyche and career aspirations over the primary topic of FRIED CHICKEN and the CEO said CHICKEN establishment.

While your mother's may not quite be proud of your use of the last eight (8) days, I'm sure your fathers, respectively, got a twinkle in their eyes. I work with lawyers nearly every day. Many of them could only wish to hold an argument and a grudge for as long as you two have sustained without really having true skin in the game or perhaps likely knowing nothing more about each other then just anonymous postings.

The comments on these threads can certainly be amusing. Sometimes the intelligent civil discourse alone is worth the time to read and contribute. In this thread, the topic is not about chicken (as amusing a concept as that seems).

Some of us feel that by explaining the historical benefit of bringing attention to a cause  even using "outdoor voices" and large gatherings to do so, others will make that connection to other civil rights issues and the positive outcomes - for example, the suffragette movement and the 19th amendment. Women are born women, so why should that keep them from voting? I was born hetero (didn't choose) and my sister was born a lesbian, so why should either of us be disallowed from marriage? Why should one have to call it something else? And why should we not protest the establishment of someone who uses the profits of that establishment to perpetuate the issue?

For some, when rights are denied to a group, they stick with the counter argument and try to assist in the proverbial turning on of the light bulb in others. For some, the energy for that bulb (and therefore the ability to recognize an injustice they they don't feel hurts them directly) is extinguished.

I think CP is right to throw in the towel on this one. Sometimes you are able flick that switch  even to a dimmer bulb, but sometimes it really is just pearls before swine.